PURPOSE: (68)Ga-labelled HBED-CC-PSMA is a highly promising tracer for imaging recurrent prostate cancer (PCa). The intention of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of PET/MRI with this tracer. METHODS: Twenty patients underwent PET/CT 1 h after injection of the (68)Ga-PSMA ligand followed by PET/MRI 3 h after injection. Data from the two investigations were first analysed separately and then compared with respect to tumour detection rate and radiotracer uptake in various tissues. To evaluate the quantification accuracy of the PET/MRI system, differences in SUVs between PET/CT and corresponding PET/MRI were compared with differences in SUVs between PET/CT 1 h and 3 h after injection in another patient cohort. This cohort was investigated using the same PET/CT system. RESULTS: With PET/MRI, different diagnostic sequences, higher contrast of lesions and higher resolution of MRI enabled a subjectively easier evaluation of the images. In addition, four unclear findings on PET/CT could be clarified as characteristic of PCa metastases by PET/MRI. However, in PET images of the PET/MRI, a reduced signal was observed at the level of the kidneys (in 11 patients) and around the urinary bladder (in 15 patients). This led to reduced SUVs in six lesions. SUVmean values provided by the PET/MRI system were different in muscles, blood pool, liver and spleen. CONCLUSION: PCa was detected more easily and more accurately with Ga-PSMA PET/MRI than with PET/CT and with lower radiation exposure. Consequently, this new technique could clarify unclear findings on PET/CT. However, scatter correction was challenging when the specific (68)Ga-PSMA ligand was used. Moreover, direct comparison of SUVs from PET/CT and PET/MR needs to be conducted carefully.
PURPOSE: (68)Ga-labelled HBED-CC-PSMA is a highly promising tracer for imaging recurrent prostate cancer (PCa). The intention of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of PET/MRI with this tracer. METHODS: Twenty patients underwent PET/CT 1 h after injection of the (68)Ga-PSMA ligand followed by PET/MRI 3 h after injection. Data from the two investigations were first analysed separately and then compared with respect to tumour detection rate and radiotracer uptake in various tissues. To evaluate the quantification accuracy of the PET/MRI system, differences in SUVs between PET/CT and corresponding PET/MRI were compared with differences in SUVs between PET/CT 1 h and 3 h after injection in another patient cohort. This cohort was investigated using the same PET/CT system. RESULTS: With PET/MRI, different diagnostic sequences, higher contrast of lesions and higher resolution of MRI enabled a subjectively easier evaluation of the images. In addition, four unclear findings on PET/CT could be clarified as characteristic of PCa metastases by PET/MRI. However, in PET images of the PET/MRI, a reduced signal was observed at the level of the kidneys (in 11 patients) and around the urinary bladder (in 15 patients). This led to reduced SUVs in six lesions. SUVmean values provided by the PET/MRI system were different in muscles, blood pool, liver and spleen. CONCLUSION: PCa was detected more easily and more accurately with Ga-PSMA PET/MRI than with PET/CT and with lower radiation exposure. Consequently, this new technique could clarify unclear findings on PET/CT. However, scatter correction was challenging when the specific (68)Ga-PSMA ligand was used. Moreover, direct comparison of SUVs from PET/CT and PET/MR needs to be conducted carefully.
Authors: Ying Chen; Mrudula Pullambhatla; Catherine A Foss; Youngjoo Byun; Sridhar Nimmagadda; Srinivasan Senthamizhchelvan; George Sgouros; Ronnie C Mease; Martin G Pomper Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-10-31 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Axel Wetter; Christine Lipponer; Felix Nensa; Karsten Beiderwellen; Tobias Olbricht; Herbert Rübben; Andreas Bockisch; Thomas Schlosser; Till A Heusner; Thomas C Lauenstein Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Ivan Jambor; Ronald Borra; Jukka Kemppainen; Virva Lepomäki; Riitta Parkkola; Kirsti Dean; Kalle Alanen; Eveliina Arponen; Martti Nurmi; Hannu J Aronen; Heikki Minn Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2012-02-18 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Martin Heinisch; Albert Dirisamer; Wolfgang Loidl; Franz Stoiber; Bernhard Gruy; Silke Haim; Werner Langsteger Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: A Afshar-Oromieh; A Malcher; M Eder; M Eisenhut; H G Linhart; B A Hadaschik; T Holland-Letz; F L Giesel; C Kratochwil; S Haufe; U Haberkorn; C M Zechmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-11-24 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: D L Bailey; B J Pichler; B Gückel; H Barthel; A J Beer; J Bremerich; J Czernin; A Drzezga; C Franzius; V Goh; M Hartenbach; H Iida; A Kjaer; C la Fougère; C N Ladefoged; I Law; K Nikolaou; H H Quick; O Sabri; J Schäfer; M Schäfers; H F Wehrl; T Beyer Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Pengjiang Qian; Yangyang Chen; Jung-Wen Kuo; Yu-Dong Zhang; Yizhang Jiang; Kaifa Zhao; Rose Al Helo; Harry Friel; Atallah Baydoun; Feifei Zhou; Jin Uk Heo; Norbert Avril; Karin Herrmann; Rodney Ellis; Bryan Traughber; Robert S Jones; Shitong Wang; Kuan-Hao Su; Raymond F Muzic Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Thomas A Hope; Jeremy Z Goodman; Isabel E Allen; Jeremie Calais; Wolfgang P Fendler; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Haichong K Zhang; Ying Chen; Jeeun Kang; Ala Lisok; Il Minn; Martin G Pomper; Emad M Boctor Journal: J Biophotonics Date: 2018-06-28 Impact factor: 3.207